Breaking News

Gary Nolan Podcast

Surviving a police encounter

xgarner-death-575x323.jpg.pagespeed.ic.IIX-QeEcHtG7sAx2llU_

These days even the minimally aware among us are buying the media talking points and are under the impression that police are gunning for those they have sworn to serve and protect.  This is especially true for black citizens who, if you are to believe the media, leave the house every day with targets on their backs.  I’m not a fan of some police programs-DUI checkpoints and red-light cameras to name two-and while I realize there are a few rogue officers, overall I am an unashamed, vocal supporter of the police.  I have friends and family in law enforcement and from the time I was a small boy, was raised to respect anyone wearing a badge.  I realize I speak from a white perspective-and don’t ask me to apologize for the phony concept of “white privilege”-but the following suggestions are prudent for all races, creeds, national origins, gender identification, thugness, whatever.  Consider this a “primer” for surviving a police encounter.  It will be useful for anyone who wasn’t raised by people like my parents who, if I’d been caught doing something illegal, would have rained a hell down upon my person far greater than anything the police officer could have meted out.

Rule number 1: Do what the police officer tells you.  If he says, “stop!”, stop.  If she says, “take your hands out of your pockets,” take your hands out of your pockets.  If they say, “put your hands behind your back now,”  do so.  If you have something in your hands, tell the officer “I am holding my phone” so they know it is not a gun.  You can politely ask why you are being pulled over or arrested (if by some chance you aren’t aware of what you did that caught the officer’s attention), but you do not have to agree with it in order to comply with the officer’s request.  Resist the impulse to talk, because you’ll want to, and for God’s sake, don’t start badmouthing the officer.

Rule number 2: Do not resist.  You know that old saying, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”?  It applies here.  This is the time to be polite, not the time to go for his or her service weapon, punch him in the face, run toward or away from him, or initiate any other provocative action that is likely to get you tazed or shot even if you feel like this encounter represents a clear case of police harassment.  Be compliant and docile, busy yourself by keeping your mouth shut while you are not resisting, and settle yourself in the back of the police car.  You can sort things out at the station and/or in court.

Rule number 3: Shut up.  I have already hinted at the importance of not talking in rules 1 and 2, but allowing a stream of profanity that is directed at the police to flow and/or offering some lame explanation without a lawyer present is just foolish.  Baiting and berating the police will not help your case, it just elevates the situation, and you need an attorney to keep you from saying things that will not be helpful to you in court.  If you feel you must speak, ask for a lawyer.  For those of you who cannot suppress the desire to vocalize, you might recite the Declaration of Independence or sing the Star Spangled Banner.

There are only 3 rules, and they probably sound too simple to be effective, but the cops I know will not shoot you if you follow them to the letter.  When you look at the cases of police shootings they typically involve citizens not exercising the rules above.  Even if I don’t agree with a law or a police stop, I know I must abide by it and then argue my case in court.  This is true even when I know I have done nothing wrong; in the street the police rule because they have the badges and guns and are charged with keeping order.  Under no circumstances is it ever advisable or appropriate to take a stand anywhere but a court of law.  It goes without saying that the best way to avoid getting shot by a police officer is to not break the law, but that’s for another blog…

And they wonder why their ratings suck

yesdwfk7jocacg3qgdon

I won’t even presume what goes through a rape victim’s mind when she’s forced-against her will-to perform any sex act, but the idea that some jackass reporter would question why she didn’t bite her attacker’s penis is beyond the pale.  Yes, one Don Lemon, a talking head on CNN had the utter lack of class, decency, and taste to ask that of the woman accusing Bill Cosby of rape.

Try, if you can, to imagine this question being asked by a FOX News reporter and the blow-back that might ensue.  I was actually surprised the HuffPo decided to call CNN out on this, as mild as it is, and I am trying to imagine how this moron is even employed this morning after having asked this question of a rape victim.  I would not be surprised, had this been asked by a FOX News employee-on camera-that Obama wouldn’t have taken to prompter demanding the FCC  find a reason to take the entire network off the air.  When you consider the public firestorm after ill-advised but less cruel comments made by a conservative radio host and politician you’d think they’d be all over this given how offensive it was.  Do you hear the crickets? Yes?  Wonder if it has to do with this occurring on a liberal network?

As I wait and troll the web and watch the news for any word about Jonathan Gruber, a man who visited the White House on multiple occasions to help get Obamacare passed, who mocked our citizenry for being stupid-repeatedly-and who freely admitted to gaming the system, I try to remember that the media world slants one way.  Left.  They can say and do anything and get a free pass.  It’s up to the  purveyors of news sources to demand better, to change the channel when what’s really stupid opens its mouth and asked a question like this one.

Status

Media airwaves are crackling and pundit mouths are flapping with the news that O is planning executive action to legalize illegals.  This really isn’t new news; he’s been threatening it practically since he foisted Obamacare onto an unwilling nation of stupid people.  Doing it now will serve as a reminder to Republicans and the nation that he drives the train as the nation’s chief executive and will do what he wants, when he wants, for whom he wants.

The big fear is that once this crop of illegals suddenly gain status, a new crop will start heading over the border.  This is a legitimate concern because how do we effectively seal off our borders to prevent people from sneaking in when there are miles and miles and miles of rugged territory.  We cannot possibly monitor every single inch of it and there are those who don’t particularly care if they are caught because it takes forever, if ever, to send them back.  Let’s look instead at what makes this country attractive and what pisses people off about illegal immigrants.  I’m not saying don’t protect the border, but if you drill down to the pathologies involved with immigration, you get a different sense of things.  One of the biggest complaints of the average citizen is that these people are stealing jobs.  No, they are not.  They are taking jobs that American-born teat-suckers won’t take and don’t have to take because they aren’t forced to work for their keep.  Illegals aren’t subject to minimum wage, they are subject to market forces.  Legalizing illegals just means they now can either take a minimum wage job, or belly up to the government trough like American citizens can while their comrades back home trot across the border to work for-you guessed it-the same jobs the illegals had before Obama made them legal.  This leads to the second complaint, that illegals will immediately start to avail themselves of the fruits of other Americans’ labor via welfare programs once they are legal.  This is a legitimate beef, but who can blame them?  Every social service government website has directions in Spanish to attach to the teat so we make it easy for them.  No wonder they think the streets are paved with gold.  I believe it is a misnomer, however, to assume they come here to be cared for in the bosom of the government.  The vast majority of immigrants from down south-the ones most people think about when they see red on this issue-are the low skill workers who will take what an employer will pay in exchange for a day’s work.  They come here wanting an opportunity; our government programs lure them into laziness like it’s the American way or something.

I know there are people who do not agree with me on this but I don’t have a problem with status change from illegal to legal.  Verify they are not carrying illness, are not criminals, and let them work.  Note I did NOT say attach them to the teat, I said LET THEM WORK.  Advise them that they are welcome to stay provided they have gainful employ, and they will not be eligible for any of the freebies other Americans shouldn’t be getting.  Give them a path to citizenship that includes staying out of trouble with the law, learning English, and working.  Otherwise, show them the door.  If they know that there is no “fall-back”, that they will not be eligible for government programs (and you already know I would get rid of every single program that takes the fruits of one man’s labor to redistribute to someone who didn’t work for it), any incentive that might provide is automatically eliminated.  It is possible that we will lose quite a few illegals by telling them they may not suck the teat, but I’m betting there will be more who are willing to pay their way in exchange for the freedom and opportunity this country provides.  Obama could stifle critics in a heartbeat by announcing a path to citizenship and legal worker status, with no eligibility for government programs through at minimum 2 generations, and a program by which the welcome mat is rolled out for legal immigrants who are disease-free and not criminals.

PODCAST: Columbia Super discusses guns in schools

It’s an option now, but don’t expect teachers to carry guns in Columbia Public School buildings. State legislators last week put into law the option for school employees to have a gun in the classroom, if they go through special training.

Each school board gets to decide on granting that authority, though, then the superintendent has the sole power to make the hire. Columbia Superintendent Peter Stiepleman says on The Gary Nolan Show he doesn’t plan to give instructors that power.

“What I am uncomfortable with is asking teachers to expand their role from teaching to also safeguarding with an armed gun,” Dr. Stiepleman says.

Doctor Stiepleman says he does support arming the district’s safety and security directors, who are ex-cops. The board narrowly voted against doing that last year.

“My perspective right now is I’d rather have police have guns, and I’d rather have our safety and security be the ones who are armed, and not put the burdens on a teacher,” Stiepleman says.

 

 

Columbia Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Peter Stiepleman will have the final say on whether or not guns will be allowed in Columbia’s schools. He joined Gary Nolan Tuesday morning to discuss the possibility and the new law that makes it possible.

Tune in to the Gary Nolan Show Mon-Fri from 9a-noon, and Gary on Guns Saturday mornings from 8a-10a.

Gary Nolan Hosts Mayoral Debate

Incumbent Bob McDavid and challenger Sid Sullivan each want to win Columbia’s mayoral race on April 2nd… and Gary Nolan hosted them for a debate on the issues Tuesday morning. The candidates touched on some hot-button issues and exchanged their visions for Columbia. Click the player below or download the podcast to hear their conversation!

[display_podcast]